• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.103-122
• /
• 2004

Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award play an important role in the settlement of the international commercial disputes. The New York Convention makes it a duty for the courts of signatories to recognize and enforce the foreign arbitral awards not taking the nationality of the party concerned into consideration. Recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award may be refused if the award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made. The arbitral award has the same force as an irrevocable judgement including effect of excluding further litigation, its execution and formation. But the effect of set aside arbitral award made abroad in arbitral place was denied by France court for the interest of his people. There is no arbitral act but arbitral procedure is regulated by New Code of Civil Procedure in case of France. An appeal against the decision which grants recognition or enforcement is open if the recognition or execution is contrary to international pubic policy in virtue of Art. 1502. Arbitrator may consider compulsory provisions in arbitral place to assure to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.35
• /
• pp.101-124
• /
• 2007

This paper purposes to examine the setting aside and the refusal of enforcement of arbitral awards and their implications for practitioners. The aim of challenging an award before a national court at the seat, or place, of arbitration is to have it modified in some way by the relevant court, or more usually, to have that court declare that the award is to be disregarded (i.e. "annulled" or "set aside") in whole or in part. If an award is set aside or annulled by the relevant court, it will usually be treated as invalid and accordingly unenforceable, not only by the courts of the seat of arbitration but also by national courts elsewhere. This is because, under both the 1958 New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the competent court may refuse to grant recognition and enforcement of an award that has been "set aside" by a court of the seat of arbitration. The New York Convention set out various grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. The provisions of the Model Law governing recognition, enforcement or setting-aside of awards are almost identical to those set out in the Convention. Especially, the New York Convention and the Model Law state that an arbitral award may be refused and set aside if a national court of the place of arbitration finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of its own country. Each state has its own concept of what is required by its "public policy". It is possible to envisage, for example, a dispute over the division of gaming profits from a casino. In many states, the underlying transaction that led to the award would be regarded as a normal commercial transaction and the award would be regarded as valid. Indeed, it is a consistent theme to be found in the legislation and judical decision of many countries. If a workable definition of "international public policy" could be found, it would provide an effective way of preventing an award in an international arbitration from being set aside and refusal for purely domestic policy consideration.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.31
• /
• pp.107-134
• /
• 2006

Enforcement of an arbitration award is an extremely important issue in arbitration. Arbitration, as a dispute settlement process, is rendered meaningless if it is not possible to enforce an award rendered by an arbitration tribunal. On the other hand, the present international arbitration system guided by the New York Convention and UNCITRAL Model Law is established on the dual supervision from the national courts. The nationality of the international arbitral award closely relates to the supervision of the national court, and the national court is entitled to decide the nationality of the international award in accordance with the conditions set in its own domestic law. The national court may set aside arbitral award made in its territory while the foreign court may refuge enforcement of foreign arbitral awards according to its own law and international convention to which it is a party. The conditions set in the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China are in agreement with those set in the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Chinese national court is entitled to set aside international awards made in China in accordance with the Chinese Law. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the Chinesr practice on the revocation of international commercial arbitral awards.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.51-88
• /
• 2006

The obligation on a national court to recognize and enforce arbitral awards as provided in Article III New York Convention, which both Korea and China have ratified, is subject to limited exceptions. Recognition and enforcement will be refused only if the party against whom enforcement is sought can show that one of the exclusive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article V(1) New York Convention has occurred. The court may also refuse enforcement ex officio if the award violates that state's public policy. This article explores the circumstances where arbitral awards may be refused enforcement under the Korean and Chinese arbitration laws. It first analyzes the relevant statutory provisions. In Korea and China, which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model law, the grounds of challenge are exhaustively defined within their respective arbitration laws. According to their arbitration laws, an arbitral award may be set aside if a party making the application proves that (i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity or the agreement is not valid under the applicable law, (ii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case, (iii) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, or (iv) the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. An arbitral award may also be set aside ex officio by the court if the court finds that (i) the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the applicable law or (ii) the award is in conflict with the public policy. This article then reviews relevant judicial decisions rendered in Korea and China to see how the courts in these countries have been interpreting the provisions specifying the grounds for challenging arbitral awards. It concludes that the courts in Korea and China rarely accept challenges to arbitral awards, thereby respecting the mandate of the New York Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.115-137
• /
• 1999

The UNCITRAL, during its thirty-two session in 1999 discussed certain issues and problems identified in interactional commercial arbitration practice. The issues discussed include certain aspects if conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; arbitability ; soverign immunity ; consolidation of more than one case into one arbitral proceedings ; confidentiality of information in arbitral proceedings ; rasing claims in arbitral proceedings for the purpose of set-off ; decisions by "turncated" arbitral tribunals liability of arbitrators ; power by the arbitral tribunal to award interest ; costs of arbitral proceedings ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the state of origin. Among those issues discussed, most of States agreed that the issues relating to certain aspects of conciliation proceedings ; the legislative requirement of a written form for the arbitration agreement ; enforceability of interim measures of protection ; and discretion to enforce an award that has been set aside in the State of origin should have priority over other issues. The UNCITRAL may wish to consider the desirability of preparing uniform provisions on any of those issues, possibly indicating whether further work should be towards a legislative text (such as a model legislative provision or a treaty) or a non-legislative text (such as a model contractual rule).

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.19-47
• /
• 2015

International arbitration is an increasingly popular means of alternative dispute resolution for cross-border commercial transactions. The primary advantage of international arbitration over court litigation is enforceability. An international arbitration award is enforceable in most countries in the world. Especially, statistics indicate of ASEAN such as Malaysia and Singapore that the vast majority of defeated companies comply with the terms of international arbitral awards against them or settle soon after the award is rendered. Unlike Malaysia and Singapore, in Indonesia, there are several grounds for refusal of enforcement of an award including where both the nature of the dispute and the agreement to arbitrate do not meet the requirements set out in the Arbitration Law. Because Indonesia does not acknowledge decisions of foreign courts, theoretically they could enforce an international arbitral award which was set aside by the court in the seat of arbitration. This paper introduces the legal system and cases of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in ASEAN, especially Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. Secondly, by comparing their law and cases, the paper emphasized the international suitability and global fitness in involved in recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.225-253
• /
• 2005

Nowadays we does not hesitate to definite answer that the arbitration is the most developed dispute settlement out of court in the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is desirable for the reasons of speed and cost effectiveness to settle the dispute about the international commercial transaction. Online arbitration is fast because it uses the communication technologies that allow information to be sent fast and efficiently. But in online arbitration too much speed and efficiency may lead to a violation of due process rights and consequently the online arbitration awards run a risk to be set aside or refused its enforcement under the international commercial arbitration mechanism. Speed and efficiency may conflict with the procedural guarantee characterizing each adversary dispute resolution process. As arbitration is exclusive of recourse to courts, a state must guarantee that arbitral proceeding should be satisfied with the claim rights requirement. The main question regarding the sources of regulation is particularly for the due process whether or not this is provided by the availability of grounds to set arbitral award aside. In other words, does it respect due process in the arbitration proceeding including information communication and technology under the online arbitration. In this paper it is discussed about how the main issue in arbitration should be implemented in online arbitration proceedings to cope with the due process requirements in national and international.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.3
• /
• pp.47-77
• /
• 2014

Ever since its introduction in the 1927 ICC Arbitration Rules, scrutiny of awards by the ICC Court has been a cornerstone feature of ICC arbitration. Most players involved in the arbitral process are likely to concede that a certain level of review of arbitral awards is both desirable and beneficial. Indeed, proponents among the users are frequently influenced in their choice of the ICC as the administering arbitral institution, based on their strong conviction that time and money invested in the resolution of a dispute is ultimately only well spent if awards are voluntarily complied with or at least less susceptible to be set aside. By providing a look behind the scenes of the scrutiny process, the article does away with tales of excessive intervention on behalf of the arbitral institution when reviewing and approving awards and demystifies the role played by the ICC Court throughout its close interaction with arbitral tribunals operating under the ICC Rules. The article further argues that the scrutiny process can be a highly efficient tool that helps to increase the quality and enforceability of awards rendered under the aegis of the ICC.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.61-86
• /
• 2011

Korea Supreme Court has given thirty-nine time's judgments on enforcement of Arbitral awards for thirty-six arbitration cases and made four time's decision on the arbitration cases since Korea arbitration act was enacted in 1966. Most of the arbitration cases appealed to the Supreme Court was to obtain the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards or to set aside the arbitral awards according to the Korea arbitration Act article 36 and article 37, by reason of (a) a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity under the law applicable to him or the said agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, (b) a party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or arbitrators or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case (c) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. However, 5 cases of these arbitral awards were refused to obtain the enforcement of Arbitral awards and have been cancelled finally by the Supreme Court only by the New York Convention of 1958.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.113-146
• /
• 2005

Bankruptcy proceedings serve the purpose of the collective satisfaction of the debtor's creditors through the realisation of the debtor's assets and the distribution of the proceeds therefrom. Upon the adjudication bankruptcy, the debtor's right to administer and dispose of the property belonging to the bankruptcy estate shall be vested in the administrator. If a mutual contract was not or not completely fulfilled by the debtor and the other party at the time of the adjudication of bankruptcy, the administrator has right to choose wether to fulfil or terminate the contractual relation. Legal acts that have been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy and that are detrimental to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. However, these effects of bankruptcy will have not great influence on the arbitration agreement between the debtor and another party. An arbitration agreement that has been conducted prior to the adjudication of bankruptcy is binding the administrator as an universal legal successor of debtor. Only the arbitration agreement directly disadvantageous to the debtor's creditors may be contested by the administrator. Furthermore, it is not at the discretion of administrator whether or not to submit the dispute to arbitration because an arbitration agreement does not belong under the category of Art. 50 Korean bankruptcy Act which demands a mutual contract. Arbitral proceeding upon the property of the bankruptcy estate and pending for the debtor as plaintiff or against the debtor as defendant at the date of the adjudication of bankruptcy may be taken up at the given status by the administrator. This leads to a change of the party. If a duly summoned party fails to appear in arbitration court, the arbitrator, if satisfied there is no valid excuse, may continue the proceedings and make the award as if all the parties were present. This may be disadvantagious to the debtor's creditors because the arbitral award have the same effects on the participants as the final and conclusive judgement of the court. Even if there is a change of party on side of debtor to the administrator in bankruptcy, the arbitral proceedings will not be automatically postponed or suspended. The matter of how to proceed is at discretion of administrator, when the parties haven't agree on the arbitral proceedings. He can continue the arbitral proceedings without to grant an adjournment of hearing. However, an arbitration award may be challenged by a party dissatisfied and set aside by the court based upon the misconduct that violates the basic rights of the parties to a fair hearing. The arbitrator must treat the parties equally in the arbitral proceedings and give each party a full opportunity to present his case. The arbitrator, therefore, will carefully exercise his discretion in determining whether to continue the arbitral proceedings or to grant a postponing. In the practice, the arbitral proceedings may be usually postponed to grant due process.